We performed a comparison between PingFederate and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"PingFederate is very flexible. We can do many customizations, and it also provides an SDK to tailor it to our specific requirements. There are also numerous plugins available. I've worked with tools like ForgeRock and Okta, but I find PingFederate to be the most customizable."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"It has the ability to authenticate and authorize users. It is the main feature for our security."
"Authentication & Authorization are important because all the sites need authentication for security purposes. That has been handled pretty well all these years with SSO."
"IWA is an out-of-the-box feature. The SAML-based federation is standard for all tools. However, CA Single Sign-On has made the federation configuration way too simple and handy to set up and use."
"The solution is easy to use for our managers."
"Symantec Siteminder Is both scalable and stable."
"It provides the breadth and the width to provide solutions for the different kinds of technologies which we have."
"The Directory is secure. It's our user store, and it's important to keep our members safe. The product does well with that."
"It's quite scalable."
"PingFederate's UI could be streamlined. They have recently made several improvements, but it's still too complex. It's a common complaint. The configuration should be simplified because the learning curve is too steep."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"In future releases, I would like to see maybe more capabilities with some more modern authentication."
"I'd like to see a rework of the user directory configuration."
"If the reporting feature can be integrated into SSO itself that will be an icing on the cake."
"The Federation part of CA Single Sign On, it's a bit complex to implement because it involves the SSL certificates, exchange of certificates, and lot of technical details. The documentation misses some important parts of this, so that's the reason it took some time for us to go live."
"Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved."
"They need to make configurations easier, and not have the engineer having to guess what will happen when he changes a particular setting."
"Better documentation. I went through some sessions on single sign-on for version 12.7."
"The initial setup was complex, painful. But that is to be expected of any new setup. When you're a big bank like us, any kind of migration to a new product is hard. I expect it to be painful, and it was painful. But it's not something that you can avoid."
PingFederate is ranked 10th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 15th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 69 reviews. PingFederate is rated 8.2, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory, CyberArk Identity and Red Hat Single Sign On, whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingAccess, PingID and Microsoft Entra ID. See our PingFederate vs. Symantec Siteminder report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.